UWMC Sustainability Review-20251218_140341-Meeting Transcript December 18, 2025, 10:03PM 1h 3m 6s Brennan, Marty started transcription Crochet, Sarah 0:03 We did do these things. Um, so I'm just going to jump right in. Beth Jamieson 0:08 Nice one quick question before we get started. Marty, were you going to cover off on any of the outcomes from your kitchen, the meeting you were having with like around the all electric component? Is there anything there that we wanted to touch on? OK. Crochet, Sarah 0:11 Yeah. Brennan, Marty 0:21 Yes. Yeah, I I was gonna touch on that for sure. And is it OK if I transcribe this meeting? Cause I think it'll be helpful to capture OK. Beth Jamieson 0:26 OK. OK. Time of me. Brennan, Marty 0:36 Do you want to start there just to or we could? Beth Jamieson 0:39 Oh, it doesn't matter. I just knew you had a conversation. Was curious to see how it went. Brennan, Marty 0:45 Yeah. Yeah, well, I don't. Let's see. Beth Jamieson 0:51 Well, we can do lead. It doesn't matter to me. I didn't mean to throw you off. Let's keep going. Brennan, Marty 0:53 Yeah. OK. No, no, it's totally fine. Yeah. Crochet, Sarah 0:54 OK, this. Maybe we can get through this because I will have to drop off here early. So then Marty, you could you could finish up with the kitchen stuff. OK, lead gold. We're there, just barely. So we had. Brennan, Marty 1:02 Yeah. Perfect. Crochet, Sarah 1:12 Some good discussions with our consultants, the engineers and with Abbott over the last week and 1/2 or so. And we have a path to gold. We're right at 60 points right now. So that is utilizing the prescriptive path for the optimized energy performance. Credit. So that credit utilizes either energy modeling or prescriptive compliance. I think there's a lot of outstanding questions with the energy modeling and not sure where we would land with it until much later in the project. So we wanted to see if we can get there with the prescriptive path and I think we do and I think it aligns well. With the project. So these were just a couple of. These are how we're currently meeting it. So lighting power density, which is one we typically meet anyways, just based off of where we are and our requirements get us there. We might be able to pick up another point, but it's dependent on the kitchen lighting. There's so much lighting required there, it might be a little difficult. And then the other area is on Energy Star equipment and that loops into the kitchen discussion. So that that kind of is all bundled into one. But as a team looking at that, it seems like there's no reason we couldn't target all five points for that, so. That really helped us out. Pushing to lead, there's a few other little strategies that we pushed on as a team and I think are going to help keep us at the 60 point. So construction and demo waste, Abbott has taken a close look at that and trying to understand how they could comply with. Diverting their waste and it sounds like they have a plan with some off-site sorting. I know space is super limited on site there, so that's there's some challenges, but I think that they can make that work. Air testing is another one we are looking at. This one has some complications with phasing of the work and occupancy, but it still seems like that there's a path to get there. We have a few outstanding questions as far as who would perform air testing. How long that would be, how many air flushes. So there's some information to come as the project moves forward and PTOS gets additional information to kind of confirm what that looks like, but it it seems like a feasible strategy and set of points that we could. Pursue and then the last spot was acoustic performance and we did talk with the acoustic and consultant and these seem like a few easy ones. So we should be able to target sound transmission and reverberation time. Super standard. To design for that anyways. So just our basic standard of care should get us there and then pushing a little further looking once we have the MEP layout and all of the equipment selected and that plan kind of set, they can take a closer look at mitigating HVAC background noise and confirm. If we can create a nice acoustic environment and get those points there, there's a couple other things that help us with that point, like the finish materials, finish selection and location. So we've been chatting with the interiors team a little bit there to see how. You know, if there's some opportunity to kind of help identify where acoustic finishes might be or not be to help us achieve that. So that's currently where we are. I don't. I forgot to do it right for this meeting, but I'll share out after this. A PDF of our scorecard so you can kind of see all of our points and comments on where we're at. And then I have here on the next couple slides, just you know, because if we were certifying for lead, we would really be wanting to target 65 points or so. So we have some buffer points if through design some things. Kind of don't pan out where we like. So I've identified a few additional areas where we might be able to target the ones in gold. I think we're likely to get there. We just we need to be a little further in design to really know. So under that prescriptive path compliance, there's some additional points that lighting power density that I mentioned. And pushing to 40%, the building envelope, we feel pretty likely that we can achieve this 50% UA reduction there, but we haven't quite had those discussions yet with the envelope. Consultant to really confirm. So we want to be a little conservative. There's some questions about day lighting, if we have enough daylight into enough of the space to to say that we're you know that 35% of the space is on daylight occupancy. Controls. Unsure there. There's a little bit of work happening in the background to see if that's even worth continuing to look at or not. It's probably not, but we just want to do our due diligence. Yeah, it doesn't look great right now. Beth Jamieson 6:10 Yeah. Brennan, Marty 6:13 I think. Yeah, it's it's probably a no. Crochet, Sarah 6:22 This one I'm commissioning, I'm super unsure of. I know I think in our base scorecard we're we're currently just have the enhanced commissioning, but there's an additional point for monitoring based commissioning and I don't think we've brought this up to Bright Works or anyone yet to see if this is. If there's any feasibility behind looking into that or not. So I wanted to just put it on the board and see if what the reaction was if if this is something worth continuing to look look at. I'll pause for just a second in case someone has a thought. Kate Kelly 7:02 I think just unless Lisa has other comments, I think from our experience in looking at the precedent with the master site and lead guidance from O'Brien on previous projects, monitoring base commissioning is not something that UW typically. Pursues and just from our experience of providing commissioning services, it is, it is kind of one of the more expensive pieces and a little bit less bang for your buck in terms of cost, but not to say Lisa might have more experience with maybe that it's a value add. Um, on that piece as well, just cause it's yeah. One point and a little more involved. Crochet, Sarah 7:44 Right, Yeah. Lisa Dulude 7:45 Yeah, I would just guess based on how this project has been going that there wouldn't be budget for that. But yeah, that's that's just my two cents. Crochet, Sarah 7:57 I think there's other areas that are probably more value to push on, it sounds like, but I. Beth Jamieson 8:04 Apologies, I'm forgetting. Does who does carry the commissioning agent? Is that Abbott or is it UW? Because I feel like we have a commissioning agent on already, right? Brennan, Marty 8:11 It's usually. Speaker 1 8:15 UW and we do. It's Wilson Jones. Brennan, Marty 8:16 Nice you don't. Beth Jamieson 8:20 And they are not currently scoped for this, I would assume. Brennan, Marty 8:28 Hey, Josh. Speaker 1 8:28 I think that's a safe assumption. Brennan, Marty 8:32 Has because we are tracking the four base commissioning points. So do you know Josh when the commissioning gets onboarded? Seems like soonish, right? Speaker 1 8:47 I think they're ready to be onboarded. We probably just need to reach out and engage them. Brennan, Marty 8:51 OK. Great. And Josh, you've met everybody. You, I mean, you've met Lisa Talud and the. Speaker 1 9:09 I I have met nobody but you and Sarah, but I and Alfonso. But I did show up late so and I'm on a ferry right now with limited Internet, so I've got all the video turned off. But nice to meet you. I'm Josh with Abbott. Lisa Dulude 9:25 Nice to meet you. Thanks for joining. Brennan, Marty 9:30 Great. Yeah. So, yeah, we got Brightworks here both. I don't know. Yeah, Beth and Kate and then we have Lisa's UW sustainability director, Josh. So good group to run through this. And so our our agenda was kind of large, so it's just giving an update to. Crochet, Sarah 9:45 Yeah. Brennan, Marty 9:50 To our path to lead gold and then I did. And then really we wanted to get into the documentation expectation, right? Because we're not certifying, but we we have a variance, but you know, we just want to be super hyper clear that. We're providing enough documentation through design and construction that we're satisfying the intent to get the gold. Yeah. Speaker 1 10:17 From your mouth to God's ears. Crochet, Sarah 10:22 All right, I'm just going to keep cruising through until someone stops me. So just a couple other additional strategies we are looking at as potential additional points. I'm going to go out of order here, but enhanced refrigerant management. Talking with PTP2S, it seems like this one is pretty likely to achieve. Again, just needs a little more digging into through design development here just to confirm if we get that and then our trusty old hold out here. Four additional points is the renewable energy credits and we were able to get a super quick, super high level quote on where this might fall as far as cost. So I have those kind of listed out here, so. You know, for one additional point, that's about a $5000 cost. As soon as we hit this 20% renewable energy credit threshold, we start to pick up an additional point for a regional priority. So that might be. Where the value add starts to kick in is at this two point threshold, but so we we've been holding this is kind of a a back pocket option. But again we'd have to revisit what those the quote for those would actually be once we understand a bit more of the energy use of the project so. Brennan, Marty 11:46 Yeah, I I guess, well, it'd be helpful just I I guess does University of Washington have a stance on this offsite renewables and is this something UW is procuring at scale? Is there interest in Rex? Is this? Crochet, Sarah 11:46 That's, yeah. M. Brennan, Marty 12:04 Not interesting. Lisa Dulude 12:04 Yeah, we don't have a stance on it. And I well, as a university, we don't have a stance on it. I would say it's probably at this point less of a priority. Then sort of putting that money into on-site direct emissions reduction or you know, other efficiency, energy efficiency components, that kind of thing. That that said, there is, there has been some interest in it on other projects, but those are generally new construction I think for this and just given the what I know of what it's like to work with UW medicine and tight budgets and the. Sort of budget climate that they're in. I don't think they would go for this, but yeah, that's again my two cents. Brennan, Marty 13:03 Yeah, no, it's helpful. Crochet, Sarah 13:04 Yeah, good to know. Brennan, Marty 13:06 Yeah, and we agree. It's just kind of been a back pocket. Crochet, Sarah 13:07 Mhm. Yeah. Lisa Dulude 13:10 Yeah, yeah. Crochet, Sarah 13:14 OK. So with that, I think realistically, you know, there's 1233 additional points that I seem, I feel somewhat confident we'd pick up. So we could potentially be at a 63 point scorecard there. So that's lead. Maybe I'll run through just kind of the summary of where we're at in the GBS worksheet real quick and then we can take a look at the documentation discussion. So I've, you know, the worksheet is a bit. Crazy to look at and and to get a summary. So I've sort of pulled over into our slide deck. Here's sort of where everything is. So just high level where we've issued a version of that in the project definition phase and kind of notated on sort of in each category. What the status is and what our concerns are. Um. And I think some of that has been cleared up since, but but we'll walk through it. So we have gone through and mapped what the anticipated deliverables are for each category and the GBS sheet and for lead. Lead and I think there's still some outstanding questions of, you know, what does the documentation look like? I think it's fairly straightforward for the GBS worksheet, so we'll talk about that. The design standard section, we have the variances, the lead variance, the hybrid. Energy resource variance and we are still planning to do an LCCA for the mechanical equipment and for the gas. Oh yeah, go ahead. Brennan, Marty 14:52 Just. Well, just on the variances, I guess Beth, you had sent that e-mail to Ibo, right, looking for kind of finalized. Is there a response or I guess what is the, I think there's confusion what who and what finalizes? Crochet, Sarah 14:56 Mhm. Beth Jamieson 15:09 Yeah. And actually I I ended up going back to Lisa. Poor Lisa's like because I didn't have a solid answer. It sounds like we we didn't, we had sort of a roundabout or a non-standard process, but it is, is that a fair assessment, Lisa, that it was formally approved? There are some. Crochet, Sarah 15:13 Yeah. Beth Jamieson 15:28 Connections may be still to make. Lisa Dulude 15:32 Yeah. So it was, it was approved. It was approved because it was sort of our first official variance for a project that's come through. Anyway, you don't need to know that it was approved. Um, I and I I responded to Beth today that, um, that doesn't necessarily mean that's still the right path or decision for this project based on what you've shared with us, Marty, that if they're gonna have to. Um. You know, if the energy code basically says you're gonna have to be all electric ready anyway, there's a lot of expense there. So I guess if if all of that is presented to the project team and they still want to pursue. You know, gas and combustion, kitchen equipment, OK, but uh, I think it's still something that um. I guess as we get to that point of like we're still going with the kitchen, gas, kitchen equipment or not, I'd like to have it just be updated cause I I talked to my boss Steve about this and you know, I think he would be good to bring in to just help say, Are you sure this is the right? Decision. Excuse me, I've been out sick the last couple days, but anyway. Brennan, Marty 16:59 Yeah, no, that's super helpful. You know the the team has been doing a lot of work to really I guess get all this information to UW medicine and and you know the most robust due diligence and you know, so our goal was early in January to get. Lisa Dulude 16:59 Yeah. Brennan, Marty 17:19 Really everybody together, Ibo, all the, you know, key stakeholders, obviously Josh Abbott team. And so today was kind of just a we're hoping, you know, this was more internal to get a lot, you know that we're on the right path with this documentation. But the kitchen team is, is they're actually picking the electric equivalent equipment now because it's really down to like three types of equipment. There's a griddle, there's a, you know, what do you call it? My brain just blanked. There's a charbroiler and you know, one other piece of equipment. So they're looking at equivalents to get that back in front of the, you know, the kitchen team and so. We're also running down the whole part of the variance, which is very explicit about not increasing gas use. And so we do have metered gas data and we're, you know, just making sure that if if the team, you know, really needs gas equipment that they're not exceeding that gas budget, so. Kind of running this in multiple tracks. Um. So I think early Jan, we're going to be in a really good position that everybody can kind of sit, look at all the information and it's all kind of at a critical juncture because it's at the end of January. Correct me if I'm wrong, Josh, but then it goes to all this has to start getting engineered. So this kitchen equipment is kind of the horse in front of the cart and it's going to pull the project forward, so. Speaker 1 18:59 Yeah. The only thing I would add is I think it's mid January for whatever reason. I thought it was 12/19. I think it's actually 115 is the date that they're finalizing their tables. Brennan, Marty 19:02 Mid. 11 Yeah. So great timing with the holidays, you know, so I think everyone is trying to really figure this out really fast. Crochet, Sarah 19:15 Mhm. Brennan, Marty 19:24 And I think in parallel with that is the life cycle cost analysis, Lisa of, you know, so once we have those equivalents, we can look at the cost in carbon. You know, here's, there's a griddle. Yeah, it's electric. Here's a griddle that's, you know, induction versus gas and do the math, you know. Lisa Dulude 19:45 Yeah, and. Based on what's the do you all know off the top of your head? I don't remember what the total project cost is for this kitchen project. Brennan, Marty 19:58 Joshua now. Speaker 1 20:00 It is set construction cost or total project cost. Lisa Dulude 20:04 Total project costs. Speaker 1 20:05 95 million. Lisa Dulude 20:09 OK, yeah, so it's definitely it would hit the state threshold anyway for having to do an LCCA cause it's using state funds and so that's an RCW. I can pull the it's in our. Are. Well, referenced in our LCCA document, but they'd have to do an LCCA anyway. And an ELCCA on the kitchen equipment. Brennan, Marty 20:36 What's the E? What's that ELCA? Lisa Dulude 20:37 So that. That is the LCCA is is 1 Excel tool that the state's developed typically for more of like whole building, a look at whole building cost with all the components and the ELCCA is different Excel tool. They've really they've made a lot of Excel tools over the last. Brennan, Marty 20:51 Right. Right. Lisa Dulude 21:00 Decade or two is really more for components within that you're purchasing with within the building. So that would probably we we are actually directing everyone to use the LCCT tool. You can use either tool. Brennan, Marty 21:04 Uh, OK. Lisa Dulude 21:16 Um. But under the state's requirements you can use either tool. We are asking as UW under the GBS to use the LCCT AKA the LCCA tool. I know this is all very confusing. When you read that, when you read the document, it's it's a little clearer. Brennan, Marty 21:32 Yeah. Lisa Dulude 21:35 But that helps us compare projects using the same tool as we get all those Excel sheets back. So they should have budgeted for this anyway, in theory, given the size of the project and the state requirements been around for a long time. Crochet, Sarah 21:42 That makes sense. Brennan, Marty 21:54 Yeah, yeah. And and P2S is aware of this. I think that their question was on the kitchen equipment and I think from our discussion they said it's really just the ELCCA would only be for any equipment that's gas versus electric. Is that accurate? It's not for every single piece of equipment sinks. And I mean, it's pretty extensive, right? 300 pieces of equipment. There's only seven pieces of equipment they're proposing that are gas. Lisa Dulude 22:17 Right. Yeah, I mean, as I recall, it's been a while since I actually read the RCW, but it's really somewhat loosely defined for the components. If any of you know, know better, please speak up. For the components, energy consuming components within a building. So I've I've sort of just been trying to do a common sense approach of where what equipment we're purchasing and when we do that life cycle analysis. Versus not. We certainly don't want to be doing it on all, you know, every type of fixture and everything. It would just be too much so. Brennan, Marty 23:05 OK, that makes sense. Lisa Dulude 23:05 Yeah. Brennan, Marty 23:11 Great. Crochet, Sarah 23:12 Sorry, I'm moving stuff all over in the background here. Lisa Dulude 23:16 Mhm. Crochet, Sarah 23:19 OK. Moving on the energy and climate section, I think this is one we just want to touch on quickly the EUI targets. We've been tracking a note at some point that the project is not required to document for BEPS however we. We are still planning to do this city required prescriptive compliance and documentation for that. I just want to make sure that sounds. Accurate to this group, or if there is some updated information we need to capture. Lisa Dulude 23:59 It's to the best of my knowledge we because we the UW including the Montlake Hospital is a covered entity under the Climate Commitment Act. We are then exempt from City of Seattle BEPS. So while you don't need to. Crochet, Sarah 24:10 OK. Lisa Dulude 24:17 While you don't need to do an energy model for BEPS, we do. We have submitted a for the. Both. They're sort of intertwined, both the Climate Commitment Act and the State Clean Building Performance Standard. We still do need to have some sort of documentation that shows that we're working towards this campus sort of agreed upon campus EUI. For anything that's connected to the district energy system, so. Crochet, Sarah 24:50 Yeah. Lisa Dulude 24:51 Uh, let's see. I guess I should get you our plan and our campus wide EUI target. Make a note. Brennan, Marty 24:59 So, so, so in this case because right now you know the project is not planning an energy model at which would be the only way for us to predict an EUI. It is a you know they are plugging into existing. Lisa Dulude 25:10 Mhm. Brennan, Marty 25:15 MEP systems and I guess it is you're gonna have you know outcome based metered data at the end of the project. So it is is an energy model. Required in this case. Lisa Dulude 25:33 Yeah, probably. You're right, probably not. I will check with with our CEUO division just to be sure, especially if you are doing an LCCA for the kitchen equipment and you've got. Some of the lead documentation for lighting and some of the other. You know, energy consuming components of the remodel. Brennan, Marty 25:59 Yeah, I mean it's it's going to meet Washington State Energy Code, right, which is puts us on a good path. There's heat recovery, Energy Star equipment, LED lighting like you said. So I mean, I think at the end of the day it's going to be advancing. Lisa Dulude 26:14 Right, right. Brennan, Marty 26:15 The goals other than the gas equipment which you know we're running down South. Lisa Dulude 26:22 Right, right. Yeah, good point. I'll um. Yeah. Again, this is one of the first bigger remodel projects that we've had to do with both the CCA and CBPS and BEPS sort of all intertwined. So I'll get back to you on that. But I think you're right, Marty, probably don't need an energy model in this case. Crochet, Sarah 26:40 Yeah. Lisa Dulude 26:44 H. Brennan, Marty 26:47 OK, that's helpful 'cause I mean, it's been also the team has been. Well, it's struggling to find ways that we even, well, the the concern was that we wouldn't even get substantial points through the energy path for lead. And that's where the prescriptive path kind of took, you know, precedent. Or priority? But anyways. Lisa Dulude 27:12 Mm-hmm. OK. Brennan, Marty 27:13 And saving money, right? I mean, it's kind of been the charge on this project. Lisa Dulude 27:16 Yeah, yeah. Crochet, Sarah 27:25 I'm just going to skip ahead to the next two bigger topics just because I have to drop here in a few minutes unfortunately. But don't worry Marty, we'll be in good hands. So the the embodied carbon one, this starts to get to that question about documentation, so. Brennan, Marty 27:35 Yep. Crochet, Sarah 27:45 We are planning to track materials. We have a reporting form here that we typically have in our specs and we're using this right now in the background as we select materials for finishes just to make sure that what we're putting in the project meets. A lot of these lead requirements anyways. So this is just something we kind of previewed with Abbott, but we we just wanted to get in front of you and oops, so you talk about using that as sort of a a documentation piece. We also spoke with our spec teams. I know UW has their standard specs. Oh. Brennan, Marty 28:27 Well, just just on that one, Sarah, because I think this is a big question if you go back to that slide. So and this was something you know we discussed Beth before is you know we in and Lisa's we can we can document how we're on track to have EP DSHP DS meet. Crochet, Sarah 28:28 Yeah. Mhm. Brennan, Marty 28:45 A lot of the material credits. The question is on the construction side, like so you know we've talked to Abbott about, hey, we we can have a paper trail with all the Subs that we're getting these EP DS in construction. Josh has promised no substitutions. Right. But are we tracking the cost? Because this is where the administrative, this is where a lot of the savings are for this project not certifying. But how do we prove to you if in three years UW audits this project and says you said you certified gold? Prove it. So this is kind of one of those this and this is where what we submitted at the end of project definition where we're kind of in this grey zone, you know we don't have to, we have a variance to not certify but. We're told that we have to meet lead gold. We can design it for lead gold, we can procure for lead gold. But you know, at what point, how, you know, how far do we go with this documentation? Lisa Dulude 29:51 Well, the the GBS, even if you weren't going for lead, there is that there are embodied carbon requirements under the GBS that you'd have to meet and document anyway. So and we do want require the EP DS for for that. Brennan, Marty 29:59 Yep. Right, the EBD's. Yep. Yeah, that's no problem at all. Lisa Dulude 30:12 So OK, um. Brennan, Marty 30:26 Right. Right. Lisa Dulude 30:27 Like you said, I would. I would. Um. I would like to have this this column filled out of total material cost if it's not going to be sort of a hit to the the project budget. That's essentially why we're. Or if or if you know in terms of documentation and tracking, tracking all of these expenses down. In your experience, is this something that would cost extra and I wouldn't again wouldn't be doing making this exception if we weren't. Didn't have two variances and it wasn't the project that it is, but um. Brennan, Marty 31:08 Right. No. And that's what's happening is, yeah, go ahead, Josh. Speaker 1 31:10 8 second. Oh, I I can answer that. The answer is unequivocally, yes, it would be added resource to the project to document and track all that stuff. I what that dollar value is, I don't know, it's somewhere between zero and $200,000. We could carry it as a what we're calling in the design build world as a design option. Lisa Dulude 31:27 Mm-hmm. Speaker 1 31:32 For the owners, the owner being UWMC, for them to say yes or no if the the value is worth it, acknowledging that we do have the variance, but is this level of effort worth it to them? I think initially the answer, if I can put myself in their shoes, was no because they're not. Caring too much for the actual certification in the plaque, but we can certainly put it forward as an option for their consideration. Beth Jamieson 31:59 And is the cost required for the sourcing credit that is it because you have that targeted or is it required for something some other reason? Because it sounds like the GBS requirements are just for the EPDS which wouldn't require cost. Brennan, Marty 32:13 Correct. Beth Jamieson 32:14 So it would just be for the lead equivalency tracking. Brennan, Marty 32:18 All all the lead material credits. Beth Jamieson 32:22 We tend to, I mean, we've really abandoned the sourcing credit and. Before for one in terms of the cost, especially on interiors is just like. I don't know the the level of effort from Abbott and all the Subs in terms of what are we actually impacting, where are we having change? It's just became sort of. A non-starter project, so we've kind of shifted away from it and tried to add value in other spaces. Lisa Dulude 32:54 All right. Well, it sounds like we've reached a consensus, general consensus on that. So let's, let's skip that. I don't think we're gonna like retroactively, like you said, Marty, go and be looking at this. To see if we actually, you know, hit the LEED LEED Gold certification just because it has a variance and this project is what it is, but appreciate you bringing it up. Kate Kelly 33:25 And it seems like from, you know, design documents, you should be able to have a pretty good report out of you like quantity of EP DS, HP DS for those credits and then even the low emitting and that that seems like a kind of, yeah, you know, doing our effort of the, you know, best best practice and integrate it into the specs. Brennan, Marty 33:25 Yeah. Yep. Kate Kelly 33:44 Without incurring the, yeah, massive effort on Abbott's part. Brennan, Marty 33:50 Absolutely. I mean, this is gonna be completely baked into the, you know, finished legend into the structural spec into right. So I mean, we have confidence on the design side that the project is gonna be a LEED gold project, but you know. Kate Kelly 33:56 Yeah. Brennan, Marty 34:07 I think Josh has concerned, Abbott has concerned that three years from now, right, it's it's just we don't have the certification, we don't have a perfect paper trail. But like I said, we we would still I think in the submittals. We would have, we would have that documentation, just it wouldn't be broken down into the cost and all the the tracking. Speaker 1 34:30 Yeah, yeah. Maybe said more, more confusingly, it'll be nearly impossible three years from now to go back through if there's a change in leadership. And Lisa, I appreciate your your answer. I think we just want to make sure that we're documenting accordingly so that there isn't like a. Obviously from from an ethical perspective, we will, we will do what we say we're going to do. But I want to make sure that there isn't an opportunity to go back in and change the rules of engagement when it's going to be nearly impossible to go back through and create all of this. uh process paperwork to track and and what i'm calling audit. Lisa Dulude 35:07 Mhm. Speaker 1 35:07 So that's the basis of the question. Thank you. Lisa Dulude 35:09 Yep, Yep, Yep. Brennan, Marty 35:16 Right. So is that an addendum to the variance or is there something in writing or? Lisa Dulude 35:24 I don't think it needs to be. You could just document from our call. It can be in sort of some of your your project documentation that because we're not, you know, because there's a variance from lead gold and because there's added cost to. To track those cost components of embodied carbon, the teams decided not to do that, and I think that's totally fine in this case. Brennan, Marty 35:52 OK. Well, I guess related to that, you know we we did send over that Appendix D from their project definition and we kind of struck out a lot of the lead sort of certification. But we did leave a column where you know we were going to have narratives we're gonna have, you know. Proxy documentation for a lot of this and I I don't know if. Y'all had time to review this or had questions or edits. I don't know Beth or Lisa, if you were able to have time to go through that document. Lisa Dulude 36:25 Was this the file? Excuse me, the file transfer you sent last week? Brennan, Marty 36:29 Yeah. Lisa Dulude 36:31 Because I was sick, I when I clicked on it today, I no longer the access had expired. So um. Brennan, Marty 36:36 Uh, OK. Beth Jamieson 36:37 We did download it, but which? I don't know that I know which document you're referring to. Unless Kate, do you know we? Lisa Dulude 36:39 Yeah. Kate Kelly 36:47 I think we have, yeah, we had that. This looks like the project definition more kind of presentation, right? Like that section of it. We have the one that's just your scorecard and vertical scorecard, which is what we call them, which is seems similar but. Lisa Dulude 36:54 Mhm. Brennan, Marty 36:55 Yep. Kate Kelly 37:05 It had that information in it. Um, I guess my like opening question and I know we've kind of danced around it is like because we have the variance from lead gold. Um. I mean, you know, documenting sounds having some documentation to prove some of the lead credits, especially where they're aligned with GBS, sounds like great best practice, but from Lisa's perspective for projects that have variances. You know, would we be expected to go through lead credits that are not in the GBS checklist and be, you know, presenting those to the to the team I guess is kind of a first question cause I think that's you know in Marty's in Sarah's. Checklist is really confirming every single lead credit and what we would expect to provide for that. Some of them are low effort, you know, a narrative, something like that. But just, yeah, maybe not to. Crochet, Sarah 37:59 Right. Kate Kelly 38:05 Get too deep down into documenting if it's if it's really not something that the UW is going to be really looking at anyway, since there is a variance to the LEED gold. Lisa Dulude 38:16 Yeah, I would say keep it pretty minimal for this one. It will. You know, I I am planning to now that we have the new GBS in place to start building a case study for all of our major projects. So some of this will be, you know, even a short narrative or how it was anticipated to score under lead would be helpful. You know, we would say this one wasn't certified, but it probably, you know, there's a likelihood it would have been etcetera. Brennan, Marty 38:40 Yeah. Lisa Dulude 38:49 The things that would be more helpful to me because we're in such a universities across the country are in such a budget crunch and UW is no exception any of the. Energy, water, um emissions related calculations. I can put more into a this is a cost savings for the university, um you know over the life of the the project or something. So that's really helpful to me cause then I can always go back and report to. Brennan, Marty 39:09 Cents. Lisa Dulude 39:23 Leadership and report to UW regions. This is how many projects that we completed that were eligible under the GBA GBS and I can roll up some of those benefit numbers. Brennan, Marty 39:37 So would that be like, well, we'll have the lifecycle cost analysis, I guess you know we're talked about on the water side, you know we would have. We'd basically point to the drawings like you. There could be a small, yeah, like a a narrative, but then it points to the drawings. Like I guess, do we need the full calculator? Yeah, it yeah, it just gets fussy really fast. Lisa Dulude 40:07 Yeah, um. Brennan, Marty 40:13 You know, we're meeting the Washington State Energy Code, so you know, is that is that enough? Lisa Dulude 40:17 Yeah. Brennan, Marty 40:31 Yep. Lisa Dulude 40:32 Could I say, uh, let me take a look and and pause for a minute 'cause they're um. Probably, especially again in this 'cause we're trying to be so budget conscious in this project. I'd say meeting, meeting, you know, the state energy code is is probably enough, but if you already have some calculations done that we could pull out like you know, we met the state energy code and the kitchen uses a lot of water and because of the the energy code and the fixtures that we selected. This is how much we saved on total energy and or excuse me, water and sewer costs compared to what used to be there. Something like that if you've already got those types of things calculated for the project. Pulling those out for me would be great, but um, again, I don't. Especially because the budget is tight on this one, I I don't wanna. Add it. Have it be an added level of effort if that isn't already sort of part of the work that's being done. Brennan, Marty 41:30 Yeah. Beth Jamieson 41:33 Yeah. And I'm, I'm sort of going back to our, the conversation we had in September when we were talking about the variances. And I thought at that point we were pretty specifically asking like what documentation would be required. And at least in the workbook, Lisa, you were kind of like put any in there, that's OK. Like you don't have to turn it over. So that's why I think we're still sort of like. What are we doing? Um, I. Lisa Dulude 41:55 Yeah, yeah, I'm. I'm learning. Beth Jamieson 41:59 Honestly, that's kind of where I thought we were headed, that it was just going to be like NA for lead. There's a scorecard, the team like this is above and beyond what I was expecting and that's great. But I'm also, yeah, wondering when, if and when we start to get pushback from. Ibu or anybody on the UW team outside of sustainability, what we're able to to say. Lisa Dulude 42:24 But Marty was showing me the OR somebody, whoever had the the GBS workbook on screen. That was documentation for the some of the components required for the GBS, so the water use intensity, the energy use intensity. So it's not necessarily documentation for lead, but for the GBS. Beth Jamieson 42:27 Yeah, that was smartly. Mhm. Right. And that all feels clear cut, but it's more of the lead documentation that I think I'm still. Lisa Dulude 42:50 Oh, no, I don't. Yeah, I don't think we need to do. Um. Beth Jamieson 42:52 Nothing. Lisa Dulude 42:55 I mean, I don't think we need to spend a lot of time doing any lead documentation. Beth Jamieson 42:59 OK, that's where you're saying like put a short narrative, it's a scorecard. Maybe include a note in terms of the approach and how you deemed the strategy feasible and how you designed for it kind of a thing. Lisa Dulude 43:13 Yeah, yeah. And it looks like some of that work's already been done. So don't erase work that's already been done, but or get don't get rid of it. But yeah, I think it can be pretty minimal for the lead documentation. Beth Jamieson 43:17 Mhm. Lisa Dulude 43:28 That sounds that sounds reasonable to everybody. OK. Brennan, Marty 43:33 Yeah. So I guess then on the GBS side, the EUI, like we said, gets tricky without an energy model, right? So, so that's a case where. You know that the team would not have that. Lisa Dulude 43:53 Yeah. Brennan, Marty 43:59 And you know, it's a tricky energy model because we're basically a big commercial kitchen. So it's not going to be a, you know, it's hard to get something super accurate and we're connecting into all these existing. We're basically three buildings stitching together, right. So it's. Lisa Dulude 44:04 Yeah. Right, right. Brennan, Marty 44:16 It's complicated. Kate Kelly 44:18 How do you tie that into at least to your energy management system? Because I was doing some digging on what you you know are the master site credits and your advanced energy metering is uniquely kind of a slam dunk with your I think it's called. An acronym starts with an S energy management system, but you pull things like you know, can you lean on pulling real time energy information from the energy meters and the campus wide system as in lieu of? The energy model information, which is probably be come out weird anyways for a lead project. Lisa Dulude 44:52 Yeah. Yeah, yeah, it's a good question. We have, we have energy cap software and we we also have a OSI Pi data management system and not too long ago we we actually have a separate meter. You know, sort of a gas sub-meter for the hospital. We used to just estimate how much gas it consumed. So in theory we could. I don't, I don't know the level of sub-metering that we have at the hospital and actually are are we putting in any type of sub-metering? Are we required to with? Kate Kelly 45:18 Mhm. Lisa Dulude 45:34 This renovation at the kitchen. Anyone know? Brennan, Marty 45:37 Yeah, Josh, is that something you've talked with Matt? I would think that would be a. Good to have. Speaker 1 45:45 I haven't been involved at that level. Are you talking gas or was this for electrical? Brennan, Marty 45:48 Yeah. I think all of it. I mean, so we already have the gas meter, so that's good. And that's just the kitchen, but electrical. Lisa Dulude 45:53 Yeah. Speaker 1 46:02 We can ask the question and make the recommendation. Brennan, Marty 46:04 Yep. Lisa Dulude 46:05 Yeah, yeah. I think it, I know it was, it's something relative that we've put into the FDS in terms of more metering, but I yeah, anyway go back to your to your question, Kate, we probably could. Brennan, Marty 46:06 Yep. Speaker 1 46:06 Yes. Lisa Dulude 46:21 I agree that if they didn't budget for an energy model and this would be, yeah, like you said, a complicated one, it's not worth it. I'm not gonna make them do it. I wouldn't wouldn't probably wouldn't be the best use of the money, but I guess what we'll what we can just say is that the work you're doing on the LCCA for the gas versus electric. Kitchen equipment, why don't we say that that that would definitely suffice for this project and hopefully help us make an informed decision about where the trade-offs are for. For those two, those options. Brennan, Marty 47:06 Right. I guess so yeah, this is all helpful. Related to this best shared four different spec sections that go in division one and you know a lot of it is lead oriented and. I think is still relevant, but you know, like you said, Beth, a bunch would get edited out as far as you know anything that's specific to lead online or. I guess you know, because yeah, there there were, there's certain, there's certain lead credits that like we have to like actually do it like like take the waste diversion. If we're really going for two credits, Abbott has to. I mean in King County it has waste diversion requirements already, but like that is getting documented, right? If we do air quality testing, we're doing a test and there's going to be a report, right? So there's certain things that are just happening. So I guess it just gets a little there's, I don't know if we could get some help and what you think would be what gets struck out of those specs or do you want us to go through it and say we think none of this applies? Based on this conversation, but I guess what what's a good strategy for how we incorporate these specs? I mean a lot of it I think is a no brainer as far as EB DS, HB DS, the buy clean language, we're technically under 100,000 square feet. So we don't trigger bike lean. We're basically doing bike lean because we're going to have all the EPDs through the GBS. We're just not, you know, the bike lean more or less has you do a life. I didn't realize that that template you sent, it has you fill out quantities, not just EPDs. So it's kind of a small life. Psychoanalysis. We don't, but we don't trigger it, so I don't think we would append the buy clean into our spec. But anyways, just curious your thoughts how we incorporate the Division One UW specs. Lisa Dulude 49:22 I wouldn't incorporate the by clean by fair. Um. Just having having the EP DS for the GBS is fine. And then? Yeah, if you're as far as waste diversion, if you're already doing some of what might be required for, you know, King County solid waste requirements, um. I don't know how that compares to what would be required by lead, but I think uh, you don't need to go and meet the lead spec for that. Wouldn't you agree Beth? We're we're basically saying um. You know, we're we're exempt from that. I do think the indoor air quality testing is worthwhile in a kitchen, excuse me, but that's something maybe you could propose to the project team and see how they feel. You know, there's a cost, obviously a cost for everything, but. Brennan, Marty 50:24 Yeah. Yeah, yeah. And that one is, yeah. Kate Kelly 50:32 Reviewing those specs and I think, yeah, maybe a few of us need to take a look at em, but is yeah, like lead submittals like the submittal requirement sections may be striking those. So I don't, I guess I'm I I'm not sure about that, you know, I that's something that. When those specs go out to subcontractors and if they're expected to be submitting leads submittal or you know, product data submittals on the environmental that are not, yeah, making it specific for the EPD related products probably seems like the best strategy is what we're talking about here. But um, just to avoid any additional. Um, I guess bidding. As feedback from, you know if it's for all of, if it were all for all the lead material categories, that's a lot of kind of lead submittal information that will be coming through the project and I guess that's a that's a question that I think. Beth Jamieson 51:29 And I see Marty on your checklist or I don't know Sarah's, you know it does say recommended documentation like the ZGF sustainable product data reporting form. So is that I'm that to me feels like in excess of what? Kate Kelly 51:31 I need to. OK, yeah. Beth Jamieson 51:47 UW is requiring. So that's where I'm just wondering like, are you gonna be able to get that? I'd love to say that we're gonna do that, but I'm like, I don't know that we have the ability to require it is where I'm coming from. Brennan, Marty 52:05 But it gets back to that paper trail, you know that we just want to be sure whatever we just spec is procured and we can validate it. And so I mean a lot of times that form is just more of a helpful rule of thumb that the sub knows, oh, I need a declare label and I need HPD and and it's. Kate Kelly 52:12 Yeah. Beth Jamieson 52:23 Mhm. Brennan, Marty 52:25 Baked into the finished legend and I don't think it adds a lot of cost, honestly. I don't know, Josh, you're. Speaker 1 52:32 We we won't be tracking it based on what I heard. I can tell you that that there if there isn't someone that's going to audit this, we won't be tracking it at that. We'll be tracking it from a prescriptive specification, no substitutions allowed perspective. Kate Kelly 52:33 Mhm. Brennan, Marty 52:49 Right. Right. So we would have all that documentation from the design side and then it's rocured. Lisa Dulude 53:02 Yeah, um. And I think, I think that makes sense for this project that that approach so. Brennan, Marty 53:09 OK. So then does any. So then most of this lead spec language wouldn't necessarily be incorporated. Beth Jamieson 53:20 Yeah. That's what I'm thinking too. Lisa Dulude 53:26 Yeah, I mean, we definitely wanna make sure we're hitting all the GPS requirements, and I don't wanna negate the work you've already done on tracking some of the lead stuff thus far. But yeah, we don't need to. Beth Jamieson 53:28 Mhm. Brennan, Marty 53:29 Right. Beth Jamieson 53:39 Yeah, Marty, I mean, and I'm happy like Kate and I can go through the. I wanted to get it over to you so you could see what it was, but we can take a pass through and strike and say here's what we think you need to include for just GBS only and then run it past Lisa to to make sure we're aligned if that's helpful to get you a little further, but. Lisa Dulude 53:58 It is. Beth Jamieson 54:00 OK, do that on our end. Brennan, Marty 54:05 In general though, I I think the strategy is good. I guess, Josh, do you have any concerns what we're where this is headed? Speaker 1 54:16 No, I feel like that's a I feel like you're baiting me into a discussion that you don't want me to have on this call. What I heard was we don't need to document, we need to meet the prescriptive letter of what we specify. And that that will be lead gold or better. And I'll probably stop talking at that point before I dig myself in a hole. Anything that is provided, whether it's a short write up that Marty, I assume you will, you would probably jump at the opportunity to create some content like that knowing you will be icing on the cake and and added value for UW and Bright work. Brennan, Marty 54:47 Yeah. Speaker 1 54:55 but not a requirement. Brennan, Marty 55:00 With the exception of, yeah, except whatever is GBS that we're not, that's not part of the variance we'll have to document with the exception of an energy model we're not going to have. Speaker 1 55:01 Bear assessment. GPS. Brennan, Marty 55:15 Um. I I don't think we have other issues. I I'll review the water, the water calcs with the plumbing team. I don't think that's gonna be an issue, but that those water calcs are excluding the process loads in the kitchen, so. It's really just the bathroom. OK. Well that was the lion's share of this call and I think it I feel better about circling back with Ibo the rest in January. So we we Josh does early Jan still sound like the right next step and and we kind of. Or do do we want? Yeah. Speaker 1 56:06 Next steps for what? Maybe I missed what the? Brennan, Marty 56:10 Well, I I think our goal was to kind of communicate this out to the UW Medicine folks. Speaker 1 56:16 Yeah, probably. Just suggest maybe Monday at our Maybe we don't have a PMT on Monday. Maybe, yeah, we've got a PMT at 1:30 to 2:30. That would probably be the right spot. It doesn't. From what I'm hearing, this is not a heavy lift. This is, I'll say, for Abbott and Marty, this is something that ZGF would do on any project. This is kind of de rigueur, for lack of a better term. Brennan, Marty 56:40 Yeah. Yeah. And and so sorry that call you were, you were what day were you thinking? Speaker 1 56:54 It's Monday at the PMT. We have standing project management team meetings on Mondays from 1:30 to 2:30. It's either the 22nd or the 29th, but it it doesn't seem like we need any pomp or circumstance to roll out a special project meeting to discuss this. Brennan, Marty 57:12 Well, I I guess, Lisa, we'd want to cross the bridge with the the gas variance, right? And and just be clear or or do we just make that a separate thing? Lisa Dulude 57:28 Well, I'm not, yeah, sort of not knowing the or being familiar with who's in the meeting or the agenda and sort of cadence of the meetings. It's hard for me to say. I do think it's if it's appropriate to bring up at the next meeting, I'd say do it sooner than later if they're. The you know your your client UW, but more explicitly UW medicine is thinking they're gonna go with with gas and you you know haven't shared this info with the more folks on the project team and the client than I think it would be. Good to do, yeah, as as soon as possible before things start getting purchased, finalized and purchased. Speaker 1 58:14 Before we before we select all of the last the equipment that was selected last week. Brennan, Marty 58:18 Exactly. Lisa Dulude 58:22 Yeah. Brennan, Marty 58:22 Exactly. Speaker 1 58:24 I think that's a great idea. Brennan, Marty 58:25 Yeah. Lisa Dulude 58:32 Because Marty, you remind me again, you shared some of the sort of the reasons why with just the a couple of folks on the kitchen team. Brennan, Marty 58:46 So, so Ibo was on that, yeah, so so you know he saw this, you know one we went through the code which just says, hey, you gotta, you gotta wire this kitchen for all electric no matter what. And we kind of did reiterate. Lisa Dulude 58:46 Kitchen crew last week. Yeah, yeah. Brennan, Marty 59:01 You know, UW's stance on not expanding fossil fuels. So that means what's our absolute budget of gas right now? And this gets back to the meter, Josh, that I'm still not 100% sure what our gas budget is based on that meter. I don't know if Mac Miller can help. And then this goal of 2035 being fossil fuel free. So the kitchen folks know this, the, you know, Ibo knows this. It has been made clear we're talking about 7. Appliances and here actually this is these are the existing. Mhm. Speaker 1 59:38 Yeah. I think I heard the question. Maybe I can add a little color commentary with less technical ability, but they're they're concerned that the function that those seven appliances perform, the technology in those appliances has not caught up to where they would like it to be to serve the. To create the best food and nutrition meals that they're capable of performing with a gas equivalent. So they're they're fairly dug in that they don't want to convert those seven pieces, but also acknowledge that they know 7 to 10 years from now they may not have a choice, but they think that the market in technology will catch up by that time. Brennan, Marty 1:00:05 So. Lisa Dulude 1:00:06 OK. And they're OK with with eating the cost of being electric ready under the code. Speaker 1 1:00:27 They Marty did a good job of explaining that that's that's effectively a sunk cost that will go into this project regardless. Lisa Dulude 1:00:34 OK, OK. Speaker 1 1:00:37 Not saying that you can't bring in your boss. I think you mentioned his name was Steve to try and persuade them from from your side, but. Lisa Dulude 1:00:37 OK. Yeah. Speaker 1 1:00:46 But. Lisa Dulude 1:00:47 Yeah. Speaker 1 1:00:48 I don't know that us going to the the well again and saying the same thing over like Marty did a pretty Marty. I like ribbing you more than I like giving you kudos. You know that Marty did a pretty good job about explaining that it's gonna cost you either way. So you might as well do this. And that was their responses that. Lisa Dulude 1:00:48 A. Yeah. Speaker 1 1:01:07 Acknowledged, you know, we'll bite the bullet, we'll pay for the the feed or the conductor, the everything to be ready to convert on what was sorry, what was it 2035 or whenever the the deadline was. But they weren't right. They weren't ready just yet to make that transition. Lisa Dulude 1:01:27 Yeah. OK. OK. Well, that's helpful. I do have another meeting too here at 3:00, so I have to drop off. I guess what I'll say is I I will revisit it with with my boss. He's been with you, dub and. Brennan, Marty 1:01:28 The Yeah. Lisa Dulude 1:01:41 In project delivery group for a long time before he got to managing the tadgy, yeah. Speaker 1 1:01:46 Oh, is this Taggie? Oh, that's the infamous Steve. Lisa Dulude 1:01:51 That's the infamous Steve. I'll just, I'll remind him again and see what he thinks. And he has has done more on the pulse of UW medicine than I do. So I'll I'll circle back with y'all or try to. Speaker 1 1:02:04 Sure. Yeah. And and happy to talk to Steve anytime about it or or we can throw him in the PMT which is where is it Gina, the food and nutrition director for the for the Medical Center is, is there and we can make sure she's in attendance if we want to have that discussion with Steve. Present. Lisa Dulude 1:02:26 OK, OK. Yeah, his that's probably a good idea. I'm going to be out of the office the next two weeks with public school winter break, but I think Steve is around, although his schedule is ridiculous. So anyway, I'll, I'll talk to him. I'm chatting with him tomorrow and I'll let you know. Brennan, Marty 1:02:49 Great. Well, thanks, Lisa, Kate, Josh, this is very helpful. Lisa Dulude 1:02:54 Yeah, thank you all so much. Appreciate all your your work on this. Kate Kelly 1:02:55 That was helpful. Thanks all. Brennan, Marty 1:02:58 Yeah. OK. Bye. 1:02:59 Thank you. Brennan, Marty stopped transcription